' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner Revenue, Bahawalpur, dated 3-4-1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on merits as well as being time-barred against the order of A.C./Collector, dated 28-10-1981 vide which he allotted Ihata No, 74 measuring 1 Kanal situated in Chak No, 45/A to the respondent in addition to his entitlement.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent applied for the allotment of the additional Ihata and the A.C./Collector allotted the disputed Ihata to him as additional Ihata. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed a time-barred appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur contending that Ihata Nos. 44 and 76 had already been sold to the respondent and he also held Lambardari Ihata with him and thus was not entitled for additional allotment which may be cancelled. He had further contended that the A.C./Collector did not consider the request for the allotment of lhata for Girls School for which he had applied. The Additional Commissioner after considering the arguments of both the parties observed that the allotment of the Ihata in dispute was made to the respondent after due consideration and the propriety rights had already been allowed to him and mutation to this effect was sanctioned on 16-1-1982. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal on merits as well as being time-barred observing that the order of A.C./Collector was, dated 28-10-1980 and not 28-10-1981. Hence the revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the disputed Ihata was meant for the benefit of the society and a school building was to be constructed over it. However, a boundry wall had been erected. He argued that no Mushtari Monadi for the allotment of the Ihata was made and the respondent who was a Lambardar got its allotment in collusion with the subordinate staff through an incomplete report which was made without visiting the site for making cattle shed. He contended that the allotment was obtained behind the back of the petitioners and thus was a nullity in the eyes of law. He contended that, the respondent had already sufficient lhata with him and no additional Ihata could be allotted to him. He further contended that the respondent had also sold out his own Ihata in the Chak. He argued that the order of the Collector was not a speaking order and he only endorsed the report of the office without providing any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard who had already applied for the lease of the Ihata for Girls School. He argued that the Additional Commissioner did not take stock of the whole situation but dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the appeal was time-barred by misreading the date of order of the Collector as 28- 10.198a) instead 28-10-1981. He further argued that the impugned order be set aside and the Ihata be allotted to him for the benefit of the community.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent was a Lambardar of the Chak. The Lambardari Ihata was for "deradari" and not for his own benefit. He argued that the disputed lhata was allotted to him on 28-10-1981 considering his need which was a genuine one. He alleged that he sold out Ihata No, 74/1 on 14-6-1983 much after the allotment of the disputed Ihata.
He contended that the proprietary rights of the dispute Ihata had since been allowed to him and mutation to this effect had since been sanctioned in his favour.
5. The Patwari of the circle stated that Naseem Ahmad respondent owned 104 Kanals of Agriculture land had a share of 7 Marlas in Ihata No,
44. He alongwith his other co-sharers purchased lhata No, 76/I and his share in these Ihatas was 1 Kauai and 2 Kanals, respectively. His residential Ihatas were measuring 3 Kanals 7 Marlars out of which 1 .Kaual 19 Nlarlas was purchased Ihatas. He stated that Muhammad Ismail owned 96 Kanals of Agricultural land and owned an Ibata of.1 Kauai.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The respondent as ag'ainst his Agriculture land had sufficient Ihatas with him. He after obtaining allotment of lhata No, 74 sold out Ihata No, 74/1 which establishes that the Ihata was in excess of his requirement. As a Lambardar he had to work for the benefit of the village co mutiny and not for misguiding the Department when he already had sufficient Ihatas. The A.C./Collector A should watch the conduct of the respondent and see whether in such circumstances when he by misleading the staff acted against the provision of law his retention as Lambardar is desirable. It is established that the allotments of the Ihata was obtained by misrepresentation and the Board of Revenue is, therefore, competent to suo metu take conanizance in the matter under section 30(2) of the Colony Act. I, therefore, revoke the conveyance deed executed in favour of the respondent and also cancel Mutation No 26. The revision petition is thus allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Allotment cancelled,